Third Circuit Applies Presumption of Timeliness to Pre-Certification Motion to Intervene as Class Representative

This case concerned a federal antitrust class action involving a proposed class of Class 8 truck purchasers who alleged a conspiracy by several truck transmission suppliers and manufacturers to raise prices by eliminating competition among the manufacturers. At the class certification stage, defendants moved to dismiss the named plaintiff for lack of standing since it was not a direct purchaser of the truck transmissions at issue. Two months later, the named plaintiff’s counsel filed two Rule 24 motions on behalf of new direct purchasers seeking to intervene as putative class representatives. The district court ultimately agreed that the named plaintiff lacked standing and denied the motions to intervene as untimely, reasoning that discovery should have put the new direct purchasers on notice of the potential for dismissal of the class certification motion, and thus the need for intervention, months earlier. The court denied class certification for lack of a named class representative and this appeal ensued.

On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, holding that the presumption of timeliness applies with equal force in the pre-certification context. The court reasoned that the “concerns for fair notice and the rights of persons who may otherwise be bound by the judgment in a class action carry just as much weight for putative class members before a court has ruled on class certification.” Under a totality approach, the court analyzed the three-factor timeliness test and found no prejudice to defendants because there was no meaningful delay. Moreover, the court found unpersuasive the argument that use of the same counsel by both the original named plaintiff and the intervenors amounted to notice, reasoning that “timeliness cannot hinge on requiring litigants and their attorneys to divine the intent behind each of their opponent’s questions in discovery and defensively file motions based on conceivable uses their answers might provide.”

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.